Did anyone remind these naive feminists that video games grosses surpassed Hollywood grosses? …in the year 2009!

The women perpetuating Gamergate underestimate the amount of men who have played videogames. These men don’t associate with the gamer culture, but they are able to empathize with other men in regard to the value of gaming.

Men of most all ages have picked up a controller for at least one try. I personally played hardcore weekends of Counterstrike amidst the vanilla existence of christian schooling. However I gave up videogames around eight years ago after a sum total of about ten years gaming.

I work full time and distract myself with other means, but I still can think positively about the games I played. In other words, indicting gamers puts men like myself into the same lumped basket. And I don’t like the apathetic blanket judgement coming out of these feminists.

Men don’t typically empathize over anything. However men do seek emotional activity, and in 99% of cases it takes the form of feeling victorious after competition. Remember that men evolved to take the risk, then be rewarded. In every aspect of a man’s life, reward is inseparable from competition. There must naturally be a pursuit of competition to evoke those rewarding feelings, then.

Because video gaming is simply another form of competition, most men who have never touched a controller can still empathize. Just like the rabid fan who has never stepped on to the green turf of a stadium football field, he still gets a high from the competitive experience.

Its not an attack on video games alone, but also the entire premise of games, up to and including the evolution of “play” as a human pursuit.

In terms of causing a political uproar, fucking around with video games is going to have a stronger emotional impact across the entirety of men than, say, the impact of abortion on women.

Prior to the sexual revolution in the 60s, you could be reasonably certain that a man’s socially accepted position in society was directly related to his sexual market value. For example, a laborer got laid less than a plumber, who got laid less than a teacher, who got laid less than a banker, etc.

The existence of legalized prostitution almost guaranteed this. Since men have no control over how much their constitution drives them to seek sex with more than one partner, society offered a way to satisfy their sex drive without disrupting the meritocratic order of society, even for men with the lowest status in society.

A promiscuous man would either be naturally upper class- with access to many lower class women- or he would be naturally low class, with access to lots of prostitutes.

However, for the most part of lesser promiscuous men, you could directly assume that sex was allotted based on meritocratic standing in society. Hence the everlasting stigma surrounding blue collar work, its standing in relation to white collar work, etc. The color of your sleeve and the nature of your work proclaimed to the world how much sex you have.

People today have no concept of this kind of openness about your sexual standing.

After the sexual revolution, sex is now ‘to each according to his ability,’ where even low class men can obtain status simply by nature of having a high sex drive. The bottom of the ladder, men who have no self control, get elevated to levels of status only enjoyed previously by the most productive members of society.

Take a luxury brand like Cristal; it gets marketed to rappers, billionaire entrepreneurs, and corrupt rich oligarchs. The only thing these three have in common is the level of cash in their pocket. Brands care nothing about their personal traits, integrity, productivity. Indeed, brands are required to not discriminate as a factor of doing business.

The sexual revolution, feminism, corporations, labor laws, non-discrimination – all of these are related, and they all point in one direction: a world which is dismantling hierarchy.

The problem is that hierarchy is vital to operation of markets and social infrastructure. Markets and infrastructure do not exist without hierarchy. What is bad about a world without hierarchy? On a basic level, market goods and services will disappear along with infrastructure like bridges, railways, etc. On a worse level, people would become ‘equal’ within a commoner class and a very few would become rich oligarchs.

Once gone, nature fills the vacuum. Absence of hierarchy would not result in ‘equality.’ Destruction of hierarchy leaves behind the raw state of tyranny or conditions prime for a new royalty. The most dominant will declare themselves leaders and will seek to monopolize any gathering of resources or any semblance of order.

In the current state of the western world, we see an alignment of dominant individuals rising toward what have the potential to become royal positions, or dictatorial positions. Consolidation of international corporations or governments into international interests exist only as long as necessary as a springboard for the leader positions, who are trying to avoid falling in with commoners.

Why is hierarchy disappearing? The biggest factor is that women do not grasp its utility, despise life under it, and have a biological incentive to continually undermine it.

Women want society to cater to their own individual egos, in order to provide the best opportunity for sexually dominant men to impregnate them. Women don’t care about the rights of men or other women, only their own interests. An abolishment of rule and order helps dominant men find the freedom to have casual sex with many women as possible.

The current social narrative is that women must be permitted into any previously male role under the auspice of ‘equality.’ Movement toward equality is synonymous to movement for women. If society were to suddenly reevaluate the importance of hierarchy, women would be abruptly removed from the focus of the social narrative.

As of now, society speaks little on the importance of hierarchy, only doing so to give it lip service before it tidily disappears.

How do we restore hierarchy, and therefore restore the strength of civilization?

As previously mentioned, society would need to restore a high valuation of hierarchy to it’s prime focus. It would need to think that having lots of hierarchy is a necessary and important part of life.

At the most basic level, men would need to rediscover the efficiency of hierarchical systems.

If a man is walking down the street and a stranger stops him, hands him a chess piece, and continues on- never to be seen again- two things can happen.

First, the man could mentally and physically reject the exchange by assuming it is a strange part of living in the city, and therefore throws the chess piece away.

Second, the man might assume there is some meaning to the exchange, and therefore holds on to the chess piece.

Either, way there will never be a way to know the past nor the future; he will never get an accurate explanation of why he was handed a chess piece, nor will he have any concept of how the chess piece might influence his life in the future.

There is a third choice: if the man recognizes the binary choice as such, he can store it in memory like an open case, but dormant. By not judging it either way, he can use an entire lifetime of experience to decide if the exchange had any meaning.

Much like the randomness of life is the randomness of genetics. Being born with some inherited traits might signify a random act of nature, or it could be nature’s intention all along. Either way, attempting to judge it is a fool’s errand.

Parts of a genetic makeup are best treated as an open case, but dormant. Maybe they have a grand meaning in your life, or maybe they are entirely random. Only after a lifetime of experience could you have the wisdom and introspection to judge how they might have impacted you.

Now consider the arguments for ‘equality’. Unless you are willing to accept scientific theory, a mid-life judgement on any genetic issue is, as established above, disingenuous.

No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The bolded statement above is important to grasp.

As of 2014, there is still nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prohibit nor authorizes the federal government from “making any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” to the federal government. In fact, the federal government has repeatedly and continuously operated on debts definitely not payable in gold or silver.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue, on the credit of the United States, one hundred and fifty millions of dollars of United States notes…

…and such notes herein authorized shall be receivable in payment of all kinds of taxes, internal duties, excises, debts, and demands of every kind due to the United States…and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States…

The above act was an authorization of fiat money in the form of paper, “greenbacks;” however the bolded part was soon under review in the Supreme Court case Hepburn vs. Griswold, 1871. The debate was around the above mentioned federal ambiguity once more:

But it has been maintained in argument that the power to make United States notes a legal tender in payment of all debts is a means appropriate and plainly adapted to the execution of the power to carry on war, of the power to regulate commerce, and of the power to borrow money. If it is, and is not prohibited, nor inconsistent with the letter or spirit of the Constitution, then the act which makes them such legal tender must be held to be constitutional.

The ruling stated that the 1862 legislation was intended for war-time debts only, i.e.

The single question therefore to be considered, and upon the answer to which the judgment to be rendered between these parties depends, is whether notes of the United States, issued in time of war, under acts of Congress declaring them to be a legal tender in payment of private debts, and afterwards in time of peace redeemed and paid in gold coin at the Treasury, and then reissued under the act of 1878, can, under the Constitution of the United States, be a legal tender in payment of such debts.

As of 1884, the Supreme Court rulings did not address fiat paper issued outside of wartime cases. For all purposes, issuing fiat paper in peacetime was still unconstitutional. The Supreme Court recognized the federal government’s ability to coin money, but not to declare what is legal tender, an important distinction.

This is where history deviates from the course into a gray area.

1914 saw the creation of the Federal Reserve and the issuance of Federal Reserve notes, thereby ending the incentive for the federal government to issue currencies. From 1914 on, the federal reserve note would be the de facto money of the United States.

All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal reserve banks and national banking associations), regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues.

I will quote Lyndon B Johnson in full here, because I think it is important to grasp the emotional side of the decision in 1965. Feel free to skip or read, however the meat of this post starts below the quote.

We are gathered here today for a very rare and historic occasion in our Nation’s history.

Before I make some observations that I have made note of here, I want to say to the Congress again, as I do almost daily these days, in the words of the Navy–“Well done.”

When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965 supersedes the act of 1792. And that act had the title: An Act Establishing a Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States.

Since that time our coinage of dimes, and quarters, and half dollars, and dollars have contained 90 percent silver. Today, except for the silver dollar, we are establishing a new coinage to take its place beside the old.

My Secretary of the Treasury, Joe Fowler, is a little stingy about making samples, but I have some here. Joe made sure that I wouldn’t put them in my pocket by sending them over here in plastic.

Actually, no new coins can be minted until this bill is signed. So these strikes, as they are called, are coins that we will never use. On one side is our first First Lady, Martha Washington. On the other, a replica of Mount Vernon.

The new dimes and the new quarters will contain no silver. They will be composites, with faces of the same alloy used in our 5-cent piece that is bonded to a core of pure copper. They will show a copper edge.

Our new half dollar will continue our silver tradition. Eighty percent silver on the outside and 19 percent silver inside. It will be nearly indistinguishable in appearance from our present half dollar.

All these new coins will be the same size and will bear the same designs as do their present counterparts. And they will fit all the parking meters and all the coin machines and will have the same monetary value as the present ones.

Now, all of you know these changes are necessary for a very simple reason–silver is a scarce material. Our uses of silver are growing as our population and our economy grows. The hard fact is that silver consumption is now more than double new silver production each year. So, in the face of this worldwide shortage of silver, and our rapidly growing need for coins, the only really prudent course was to reduce our dependence upon silver for making our coins.

If we had not done so, we would have risked chronic coin shortages in the very near future.

There is no change in the penny and the nickel. There is no change in the silver dollar, although we have no present plans for silver dollar production.

Some have asked whether our silver coins will disappear. The answer is very definitely-no.

Our present silver coins won’t disappear and they won’t even become rarities. We estimate that there are now 12 billion–I repeat, more than 12 billion silver dimes and quarters and half dollars that are now outstanding. We will make another billion before we halt production. And they will be used side-by-side with our new coins.

Since the life of a silver coin is about 25 years, we expect our traditional silver coins to be with us in large numbers for a long, long time.

If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be, and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin. There will be no profit in holding them out of circulation for the value of their silver content.

The new coins are not going to have a scarcity value either. The mint is geared to get into production quickly and to do it on a massive scale. We expect to produce not less than 3 1/2 billions of the new coins in the next year, and, if necessary, twice that amount in the following 12 months.

So, we have come here this morning to this, the first house of the land and this beautiful Rose Garden, to congratulate all of those men and women that make up our fine Congress, who made this legislation possible–the committees of both Houses, the leadership in both Houses, both parties, and Secretary Fowler and all of his associates in the Treasury.

I commend the new coinage to the Nation’s banks and businesses and to the public. I think it will serve us well.

Now, I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system since the 18th century. And to those Members of Congress, who are here on this very historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the 18th century we have no idea of returning to it.

We are going to keep our eyes on the stars and our feet on the ground.

Now we arrive at the purpose of today’s post.

Until 1965, the three branches of government have acted in alignment with the Constitution, such that “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” could be legally explained through Supreme Court rulings.

However, no such ruling exists to explain the apparent contradiction between the original article 1 section 10 of the Constitution and the Coinage Act of 1965. Section 10 has never been repealed.

Undoubtedly Congress can alter the value of the coins issued by its authority by increasing or diminishing, from time to time, the alloy they contain, just as it may alter, at its pleasure, the denominations of the several coins issued, but there its power stops. It cannot make these altered coins the equivalent of the coins in their previous condition; and, if the new coins should retain the same names as the original, they would only be current at their true value.

Any declaration that they should have any other value would be inoperative in fact, and a monstrous disregard by Congress of its constitutional duty.

And now Johnson’s words:

[Silver coins] will be used side-by-side with our new coins.

Unless someone can contradict me, I see grounds for challenging the Coinage Act of 1965 to be unconstitutional, therefore challenging the use of all fiat quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies to be unconstitutional.

I propose a small change to the Declaration of Independence in order to help out the vibrant people in today’s world. Real small, no big deal.

Change the following:

“Life” which represents freedom to exist, free to inhabit earth without being productive or earning, without taxation on existence.

This needs to be changed to “Pro-choice”, because having the ability to choose the importance of things is more valuable than life. Especially choosing when to be moral, when not to. When to think of children as a burden, when to think of them as a blessing. When to think of a man as a loser, when to think of him as a husband. We people of the 21st century reserve the right to be fickle and to change our minds when the morality suits us.

“Liberty” which represents freedom from onerous taxation, ability to think freely and speak freely, permanent rejection of the conditions that lead to indentured servitude, slavery, monarchy.

This needs to be changed to ‘Equality’ because equality is simply a more important idea than liberty. Besides, liberty is much too controversial a subject if it ‘micro-aggresses’ toward providing true equality.

“The Pursuit of Happiness” which represents the ability to change circumstances away from tyranny and imposition on the soul. This also represents freedom to personally decide and declare oneself happy, or to change our pursuits to fit our subjective decisions what will make us happy.

This needs to be changed to “The Pursuit of Ignorance” because men function much better when they are unconcerned with things like sexual baggage, old dysfunctional relationships, old ‘exciting’ approaches to life. Also better not to think about what makes strong community, or to think about civil rights. It’s better to simply never know what to think about these things. Much easier to take them as coda. Women and minorities find you much more agreeable when you can prove you are ‘innocent’ of racism or sexism by being truly ‘innocent’, or ‘ignorant’ or ‘naive,’ much like a small child.

In conclusion, the summary is:

Change “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” to “Pro-choice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Ignorance.”

You recognize that sex in the middle class has “strings attached” to sex. “Be clean, productive, upstanding, etc. and society will reward you.” (Think about this next time you hear a girl preach about wanting ‘no strings attached’ sex)

This meritocratic ideal is what indicates a stable middle class, and the reward is money, sex, companionship, security, love, and peace.

Without adherence to codes of conduct, the middle class devolves. The result is an upper class and everyone else (aka the lower class). The upper class can afford all of these things by buying access to them. The lower class thinks its a dog-eat-dog hustle to become upper class.

To present this in another point of view, suppose Louis XV. and his cotemporary generation, had said to the money lenders of Holland, give us money, that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of thirty-four years, you shall then, forever after, receive an annual interest of fifteen per cent. The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the people, eaten, drunk and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labor, to replace their dissipations? Not at all.

If you can avoid the ad hominem associations of the word, you would see that the root of conservatism is to ‘conserve,’ defined simply as taking something that you currently have an abundance of, and saving it for the day when you do not have as much. When a conservative person lives this as an ideology, instead of simple weights and balances of material resources, he begins to treat perception and opinion in much the same way.

Instead of bags of grains stored in a barn, consider that a conservative stores pieces of his identity. Is a conservative person a Christian? Is he a family man? Is he an entrepreneur? Is he a father? How about a buddy, comrade, gang member, club member, frat brother? A lover?

Each occupation listed above has incredibly profound implications as to the public’s perception of him as a person. For example, if a Christian man deviates much too far into the frat brother side of his personality, the trajectory of his life could change greatly. He could face social pressures, both positive and negative. He could be hated. Imagine the mother who penalizes a father for being an entrepreneur and a family man, spending too much time in the office. Imagine the lover who neglects his friends. On the other hand, imagine the family man who successfully balances family life and business. Imagine the friend who regularly incorporates his friends in his passions.

The beauty of being a conservative is that a conservative person mentally grants that he will only ever be given a part of the other person’s soul, and is agreeable with that. A conservative will never have a passion or a defining thing; to do so admits that he has spent all the currency of his reputation and has failed to ‘conserve’. How often does the public grant an aging rock star the freedom to be a family man? How often does the high-powered lawyer woman feel the freedom to put her career aside? Hopefully you see that some of the most pressing liberal scenarios in today’s world- which they have no answer for- can be answered.

If I digress for a moment, I personally believe that women will never be able to grant that kind of agency to a man, because women need him to perform all his assigned and self interested roles without fail. It is due to the woman understanding her value and her obligation to scrutinize in choosing the best man, especially not a man who would claim failure or defeat in his responsibilities. If she marries a lawyer, she implicitly expects him to have conserved parts of himself for their union; the roles of husband, father, neighborhood leader. Etc. The 50 hour a week lawyer is bound for a divorce.

Now to speak to homosexuality.

As I have made the case, a conservative man carefully conserves and allocates parts of himself into his conceptual whole, never wholly defined or enclosed. The homosexual has chosen the exact opposite route. On a conceptual level, homosexuality is not about embracing the male-male relationship; it is about embracing the homogenization of all parts of his nature into one concept. It is a desire to be defined by one concept alone, and that concept is defined by sex with another man.

I believe that men instinctively do not agree with homosexuality because of the desire homogenize all roles and perceptions into that of homosexuality. Any task becomes a hypersensitive arbitration of the responsibilities, the players, the observers: do I look gay enough doing this? Does this make me look like I don’t care about gay/fem/etc rights? What will people think of me doing this task? Will I lose credibility for my personality for doing this? Do people think this is x,y,z? Everything becomes subservient to the homosexual characterization.

A conservative saves some part of himself for different scenarios, no matter how small or remote the possibility. Take a homosexual parent with an adopted child. If the child is respected as an autonomous individual who desires to take on multiple roles in society, the child will want to know how to handle a variety of issues. For example:

-Dad, how does a guy devote time to getting a girlfriend?
-How do I get a career, and be respected?
-How do I befriend a circle of friends?

or, more innocently random questions like

-Dad, do girls like auto mechanics?
-Dad, do you think I should join a team of soccer players?
-Dad, can office workers get girls too?

A gay man simply will not be able to answer any of these without making their response align with some coda or platitude regarding homosexuality (or any associated interest, fem, lez, trans, etc). It is an ideological impossibility for a homosexual to compartmentalize different social roles.

The homogeneity affords little room for platonic relationships with heterosexuals. Every act becomes a ‘micro aggression’ liable to scrutiny: was that a gay-acceptable action? Was that pro gay? A curious thing happens because of this. Under this constant scrutiny, the homosexual forgets that the actions of others are neither pro-gay or against gay; they are simply pro-individual acts of self interest. Homosexuality sees these acts of self interest as hostile to homosexuality, simply for not including homosexuality as part of a normal person’s self interest. The slippery slope is that self interest and human agency is made pathological for refusal to concern itself with homosexuality.

It is with no surprise that since the 60s revolution, society has struggled to give people the freedom for that one passion, one thing that ‘really defines me.’ Is it any surprise that the next iteration of society would include a group of men who have encountered a viable way to declare themselves under the banner of one thing that really defines them, a la homosexuality? When men stop believing that they need to save some of themself for multiple roles, and instead choose to fling themselves wholeheartedly into one pursuit, the dysfunction awaits.

A Navy SEAL learns to shoot a rifle, parachute from an airplane, build explosives, SCUBA dive, lead militia, hike, backpack, drive multiple types of vehicles, and a variety of other tasks. The moniker of being a SEAL is respected because of the successful compartmentalization of many jobs into that one title (you can even see this in the acronym: SEa Air Land) I guarantee that the SEALs are conservative, because they will need to conserve a little bit of themselves to push the mission forward, achieve the objective, and will have conserved a last little piece of themselves to remind that they are still fathers, friends, and human beings.

Will homosexuality find the humanity to leave no role untouched by the desire for gay-friendly compliance?

The concept of a ‘managerial class’ is floating around the internet, suggesting that the future aristocracy will be comprised of the management layer of society: bankers, hedge fund managers, CEOs, etc. Indirectly, the ilk of Google, Bing, etc. are thrown in the ring for reasons not immediately apparent. Lets analyze.

Consider the tongue-in-cheek first grade understanding of entrepreneurship:

Step 1: Have idea.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit.

And right off the bat, the most successful modern companies break the mold. Its confusing to look at Google or Facebook or Amazon as being highly valued companies, since they don’t profit. What gives? Here are four possibilities:

1. Company not looking for profit

Assuming a company has a completely philanthropic mission is a valid assumption, and Google seems to reflect this partly by creating applications and services for free use for the betterment of society (think Google Maps, Labs, etc.) Also, it is valid to assume the nerds and geeks working for Google do so out of a sense of open-source like sentiment, for the betterment of technology as a whole. However, not looking for a profit makes it hard to estimate exactly how many services you can provide. Hypothetically, for ten dollars I can program you a calculator app. For ten thousand dollars I can program you an image browser. For ten million dollars I can program you a Google Maps. For ten billion dollars I can program you a ……you get my point. The mission becomes wide open. Profit tells you exactly where the market values you. So I will reject #1 as representative of Google.

–

2. Company concealing how it profits

Like any swindler or Ponzi scheme, a company can always conceal how it profits behind curtains of confusion and complexity. I doubt this is Google’s modus operandi because they publish all of their code to evaluate, their public earnings, etc. So #2 is rejected.

–

3. Profitting off of shit, embarassing

Cleaning shit out of toilets isn’t fun. But import enough low wage, low status losers, put a mop in their hands, and soon you have an empire built on shit. Try discussing this around the cocktail table and you sound like a right bastard. This is only an analogy, but we are getting warmer to Google’s strategy. Advertisement is a typically shitty way to earn revenue, and Google does it. Throwing up ads that are so distracting that your patrons have epileptic seizures, selling out your morals and giving any scumbag a platform to hawk his wares, all to make a buck. Google dips its toes in this under the guise of AdSense, or giving retailers nice statistic analysis by placing ads all over the pages. Its a philanthropic wrapper with a shit delivery. Consider that Facebook needs to read your messages and search terms to give you ‘personalized’ ads; any normal person starts to realize this is aspergy and creepy. Search for a magnum tampon and soon you will be shown ads for Vagi-clean. It happens, so this is a valid assumption for Google’s profit model. However, they explicitly reject the idea of being labelled as a ‘search engine based on advertiser revenue.’ So what gives?

–

4. Profit isn’t important

By process of elimination, this is the most interesting and most valid assumption. Rejecting profit as the objective of work and business is a novel idea. How is it even possible to defy the traditional business model? What is happening to the market?

By deduction, I have reduced Google’s motive to show that they are not interested in profit, so now I will give my theory. It is the opinion of others that the new valuation in this economy is being the manager. To rephrase this for Google: the company is more concerned with their valuation than actually producing value.

Google is now the second most valued company, and ironically is competing with an oil company and an iPhone company. Exxon has oil, Apple has iPhones, Google has….data? Apple is the number one most valued US company, and has the iPhone, iMac, iPod, iTunes, iPad, App Store, etc. These are all tangible products. Google has….the Google phone? Please.

If the Baby Boomer generation stole the wealth of generations for their coffers, it makes sense that the biggest companies don’t actually hold the most wealth. It makes sense that the biggest companies are chasing the respect and valuation of those who do have generations of wealth. And for Google, that means looking really cool so they get paid for it.

The managerial class has sidled up to the Boomers to ‘manage’ their money, ultimately boiling down to ‘lots of fun for us to do this “hard” job.’

The first link is a blog in which the author tracks the cycles of violence over time, and the distinct differences that the human condition experiences in falling crime periods versus rising crime periods.

The second link is a thread at My Posting Career. The thread is an appeal to reverse the tide of globalism by a return to smaller, regional political units. The practical benefits of doing so are described within.

Feel free to read in depth at both sites, so that you trust I am not crazy when I admit the following deduction:

Violence is noticeably declining from the modern world. The modern world is also becoming more centralized. Therefore, to achieve decentralization as described by ‘The Limits of Human Scale,’ it is necessary to reintroduce violence to society.

If you read through the second link, the author describes a ‘who’ ‘what’ ‘when’ ‘where’ ‘why’ but never a ‘how’ to create small decentralized political units-short of using force of law to do so. But to suggest that rule of law will ever move toward a decentralized system is fantasy and contradicts the ‘progressive’ nature of government and technology.

If you read through the first link, you will grasp that violence makes men react on a primal level, an unconscious move to form tribal bonds. Men drop the neurotic strive for status and instead mobilize into what has been described as comrades, brotherhood, family, etc. At the peak of a crime wave, anecdotal evidence shows that men internalize their trust in each other. The trust allows for men to have the confidence to establish many roles of leadership, much more than in safe times. The reason is because of the internalized trust in other men, and the trust that they have collectively put aside status striving.

The sum of these two blogs make it obvious men will not be motivated, coerced, ordered, or shamed into thinking of themselves as independent leaders. Men can only achieve that by testing themselves, succeeding, and watching fellow men undergo the same testing. Hence, the introduction of violence.

II.

I will digress a moment and invite you to consider the popular concept of Game. The very fact that it is identified as Game is telling: treating intersex relationships as a game has the potential to benefit men. Like a sporting event, gamesmanship opens up unintended avenues for winning – at the cost of sportsmanship.

Game distills into sex for the sake of sex, or in other words, having multiple experiences with many women will eventually change a man into an uncaring, aloof master of women. And the reason a man would want to become an aloof master of women is…… to obtain more women. Sex for the sake of sex.

The curious phenomenon of Game is that all the actions you commit for the sake of Game are an attempt to reform the biological responses that men have in the face of beautiful women. The actions are not traditional attempts at wrestling status from other men, or by earning resources and money to attract women; Game only recycles these as applied to ‘inner game’, ‘self mastery’, and so on.

III.

Now apply the same Game concept to violence, or violence for the sake of violence. Fight Club recognized the phenomenon. Two men fight for no apparent outcome; not an attempt to wrestle status, nor an attempt to procure more resources. The desire to fight was to reform the internal biological composition of the man as a survivor, and the spiritual/psychological application to the man’s personality. Fighting for the sake of fighting.

How else do men learn to lead men, when they cannot say that they are tested to be stronger than the subordinate?

The modern response is to elevate the more intelligent men to positions of leadership. If you haven’t noticed, intelligence has quickly devolved to the mimicry of intelligence, or psychosis.

IV.

To summarize: while the world moves toward progressive organization across borders, the way to artificially stunt this movement is to introduce violence to the system. Game has set the foundation for men to generally comprehend the application of gamesmanship, and it will be natural to tinker with the concept to create a system of violence for the sake of violence. By doing so, men can consciously move the system in a direction that progressivism cannot accommodate.

As a postscript, this is not advocating terrorism, sucker punching, or other cowardly acts. This is simply recognition of the effectiveness of organized or institutionalized violence in the hands of citizens.